Presumption Of Innocence Vs Electronic Presumptions
🔹 What is the Presumption of Innocence?
The Presumption of Innocence is a foundational principle of criminal justice. It means:
"Every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
This principle:
Places the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Protects individual liberty.
Is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
🔹 What are Electronic Presumptions?
In the age of digital evidence, certain statutory presumptions are applied to electronic records to assist courts. These include:
Presumption of authenticity for certified electronic records (Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act).
Presumption of guilt in cases involving:
Cybercrime
Digital signatures
Electronic contracts
Terrorism and organized crime using electronic devices
Such presumptions can shift the burden of proof to the accused, especially when:
Possession of digital devices is linked to a crime
Electronic records suggest culpability (e.g., emails, chats, GPS data, etc.)
⚖️ Conflict: Presumption of Innocence vs Electronic Presumptions
While the presumption of innocence protects the accused, electronic presumptions (created through statutory law) can override or dilute this protection in certain cases. Courts must carefully balance the two to ensure justice.
📚 Detailed Case Laws (6+ Cases)
1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Involved use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping as evidence in criminal investigation.
Issue:
Do these tests violate the presumption of innocence and right against self-incrimination?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that forcible use of these techniques violates Article 20(3) and the presumption of innocence. Such evidence cannot be used unless the accused voluntarily consents.
Significance:
Affirmed that scientific or electronic methods cannot override basic rights and presumption of innocence.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The case revolved around the admissibility of electronic records (emails, CDs, etc.) without proper certification.
Issue:
Can electronic evidence be presumed to be genuine without following proper procedures?
Held:
The Court ruled that Section 65B of the Evidence Act must be strictly followed. Only properly certified electronic records can be presumed authentic.
Significance:
Established that electronic presumptions must be strictly procedural and can't override the presumption of innocence.
3. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence. CCTV footage that could have helped was not produced.
Issue:
Can negative inference be drawn due to non-production of crucial electronic evidence?
Held:
Yes. The court held that when available electronic evidence is withheld, courts may presume it would go against the prosecution, reaffirming presumption of innocence.
Significance:
Used electronic presumption in favor of accused, maintaining the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
4. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The case dealt with difficulties in obtaining Section 65B certificates for digital evidence.
Issue:
Can electronic evidence be admitted without strict certification?
Held:
The court held that if certificate is not obtainable, then alternative methods may be allowed to admit electronic evidence, ensuring justice.
Significance:
Balanced the need for electronic presumptions with procedural fairness — without diluting the presumption of innocence.
5. R. v. Kousar Ahmed (UK Case Applied in Indian Context)
Facts:
Accused was convicted based on mobile phone GPS data and call logs.
Issue:
Can location and digital data create presumption of guilt?
Held:
The court held that while electronic data is strong circumstantial evidence, it cannot alone overturn presumption of innocence without full corroboration.
Significance:
Set international tone that electronic evidence must support — not substitute — criminal standard of proof.
6. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The police sought to compel the accused to provide voice samples for electronic evidence.
Issue:
Does compelling voice samples violate the presumption of innocence or right against self-incrimination?
Held:
The court allowed it, holding that non-testimonial physical evidence (like fingerprints, voice) does not violate Article 20(3).
Significance:
Refined the boundary between electronic presumptions and constitutional protections, while preserving the right to fair trial.
7. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Concerned admissibility of WhatsApp chats and other electronic communications.
Issue:
Can courts presume authenticity of chats without proper Section 65B certification?
Held:
Court reaffirmed strict compliance with procedural safeguards, and refusal to admit uncertified records.
Significance:
Prevented misuse of digital data, upholding the presumption of innocence by requiring verified evidence.
🔍 Summary Table: Key Takeaways
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Selvi v. State (2010) | Electronic interrogation techniques can't override presumption of innocence |
| Anvar v. Basheer (2014) | Strict rules for electronic evidence; no automatic presumption |
| Tomaso Bruno v. State (2015) | Absence of electronic evidence can favor the accused |
| Shafhi Mohammad (2018) | Flexibility in certification to ensure justice; presumption must be fair |
| Ritesh Sinha (2019) | Non-testimonial electronic evidence (voice) permissible |
| Arjun Khotkar (2020) | Procedural compliance required for electronic presumptions |
🏁 Conclusion
The presumption of innocence is a non-negotiable cornerstone of criminal law. While electronic evidence and statutory presumptions are powerful tools, courts must:
Ensure proper certification and chain of custody
Avoid over-reliance on unverified or prejudicial digital evidence
Maintain the high threshold of "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
Balance technological advancement with constitutional protections
RELATED Blog
0 comments